This is where we came in

“This is where we came in” is a refrain of return in Mike Hoolihan’s account: it places the investigation back at its point of departure just as she prepares to test the case against answers from Paulie No. Its repetition provides a sense of circular structure, but not certainty; the questions that remain are whether the case is real as she sees it, or whether her own perspective has made it appear that way.

The Expression at the Point of Return

At five p.m. on April 2, Mike says she will meet Paulie No in an hour, ask two questions, receive two answers, and bring the matter to a close. In that precise countdown, “This is where we came in” sounds both like a structural marker and a provisional claim of resolution. The promised wrap-up gives the return an immediate procedural purpose, yet Mike’s accompanying doubt unsettles the prospect that answers will settle the case. The phrase identifies a starting point without guaranteeing that the investigation can recover a stable truth from it.

Repetition and Uncertainty

The expression appears again, standing alone, after Mike’s reflection on how desire can distort perception. She recalls Trader Faulkner’s comparison to calling balls in a game: an observer may see the call that an agenda wishes to see. Mike also compares murder investigations to mysteries replayed backward and describes her own work as turning a firm knot into loose ends. Against those images of misreading and unraveling, the repeated phrase offers a return to procedure—the questions, numbers, and expert testimony she calls procedural ketchup—while preserving her admission that she may still be wrong. Its recurrence therefore closes a verbal loop but leaves the case’s interpretation open: coming back to the beginning is not the same as proving that the beginning was understood correctly.